Macbooks are pretty much indestructible. Since they developed the aluminum clam shell design, they are rugged as hell. OSX is given too much hell from the "community" for one reason. Games. That's it. No one actually notes that OSX is Unix. The terminal on OSX is almost the same as any other Unix system. For a plethora of reasons, OSX can do what Windows can't, it's just the things no one really cares about. For Computer Science, A Mac is no different than any other computer. If anyone wants to note any negatives about the Mac besides its price tag, fill free to comment.

That post did not make a lot of sense. 'Back then, it was too expensive. Now, it's just too much.' Back when? Why word it that way if nothing has changed? I have no idea what you're trying to actually convey. All I was saying was that if you're point is 'It's fine, it just costs more for nothing extra,' then why would any further argument against it ever need to be made?

Alright. What I meant to say is, the power macs had back then doesn't have such an impact as it does today. The price for Macs has always been high. Today, PC's can get more powerful hardware for less. Back then, it was not the case. It was either the Mac or a Cray. In short. The price back then was high because they had a monopoly. Now people have a cheaper, even more powerful option, the price has no merit.

Bwahahaha.Games?Seriously?I have a friend with a MAC and had to pay for an OS update otherwise his flash player,graphic editing (for his job) wasn't working AT ALL.He had to either pay 99 euros or get the free update.he decided to get the free update,because basically who the **** would pay for an OS update right?.After that it all went downhill.His libraries were all destroyed,he couldn't get a single program working.NOT.A.SINGLE.ONE.flash player would also be randomly crashing.Hence forcing him to purchase the update after which point everything MAGICALLY was working perfectly.One of the worst scamming companies I have ever seen and yet people keep boasting about apple and mac OS etc.You can't even purchase specific updates or do anything at all with your computer hadware if you reach a certain point where you need better equipment to do your job because specific part upgrades aren't viable.Basically you have to purchase a new one and probably throw the old one at the closet or have it as downloader.

They are pretty rugged, but two laptops with the same hardware, one being a mac and one not, will generally have the same/similar quality hardware. As far as I know, most of the higher end stuff between the two is made in the same factory.
It's kind of tough to compare mac to pc. Mac runs their line alot like a game console, they put together a few distinct setups and perfect those, so they run to the best of their ability. Many PC's will skip on quality in some areas to save, and will iterate much more often instead of perfecting a set of hardware. But a high quality PC can be just as rugged and last just as long as a mac.
From my experience, macbooks especially fall behind since the tiny shell reduces cooling efficiency. My Asus can render/game for hours and hours at a time without going much above room temp. But it is much larger to accommodate the fans. Only other thing other than the absurd price that i can think of right now.

Retina technology Forgot the actual term is just a buzzword that apple copyrighted so that it can only be applied to apple devices to make them seem better.

Lots of other smartphones have the same **** just with a different name they've copyrighted.

Spoiler below is basically a paragraph copied from How To Geek explaining this **** because I'm **** at explaining things.

Look at the specifications list for any device with a screen — especially smartphones — and you’ll find a long list of buzzwords that purport to be specifications. Sony has “TruBlack” and “X-Reality Picture Engine,” Toshiba has “TruBrite,” Nokia has “ClearBlack” and “PureMotion HD+” — the buzzwords go on and on.

It’s misleading marketing to parade these technologies as specifications — “X-Reality Picture Engine, only on Sony devices!” — when they’re trademarked marketing terms that can only apply to a single manufacturer’s products. For example, Apple touts that their devices as the only ones with the “Retina display” — which is true, as Apple has trademarked the term “Retina display” and it can only be used to describe Apple devices. Although other devices have screens with higher pixel-density, they can’t be referred to as Retina displays.

And retina will eventually come to pc. Honestly I don't see much of a reason to have that high of a resolution, especially on the small screen mac offers. I love my 17 inch screen, and 1080p is really clean even that large.

It is awesome, and It would be nice in some instances. I'm an artist and use photoshop for digital painting, and as far as I know, most people who do so professionally use Wacom Cintiqs. So they wouldn't even be using the retina display for it.

I know. I want one very badly. But unfortunately they suffer a bit of the same problems macs do, lack of competition. Although apple has carefully crafted their artificial lack of it So the prices ride quite high. RIght now I'm looking at either making one out of a intuos tablet and an lcd screen, or waiting another year or so for the competition to catch up.

Well, for one, the platform isn't as open as, say, Linux. For some, that's a major turn-off. I see quite a few places in IT use Linux, and the computer science line at my local university reports a 50 % Linux adoption rate within the first year (including macs switching to a Linux distro).

Also, as far as I know, Mac isn't as strong a platform as most Linux distros for pure programming tasks, and you can get very powerful software for graphic design and movie editing.
And Mac servers don't stand a chance against Linux distro servers. I doubt that you can find anyone who is willing to argue that Macs are better than Linux servers, unless it's for very specific Mac related tasks that only a Mac server can do.

Now, I'm not arguing that Windows is better than Mac for these tasks. For programming, Linux is just better because of how much less stuff is running in the background.
For Graphic Design, they're all pretty much equal. You can't get photoshop for Linux, but you can get programs that are just as powerful, and some of them are even free.
I don't really know about movie editors, but I imagine the OS' are about similar.
Server wise, Linux is the best. The scale of Linux servers are amazing, you can run it on a Raspberry Pi, or you can scale it up to a huge cluster, all without any issues.

By the way, the only reason I have found so far to use a Mac over any other OS is for making apps for the iPhone. The assholes at apple decided that the only way you can make apps for their products is in their OS which you have to buy a Mac for. Which is expensive as all hell.

Honestly, if I had the choice between Linux (any), Windows 8.1, Windows 7 or OSX (any), I would choose Linux (ubuntu) for my work PC, and windows 8.1 for my gaming rig. 8.1 fixed a lot of the issues in 8, and I've gotten used to the start screen. It's where I keep all the shortcuts I don't want on my desktop but might still need anyway. Surprisingly useful once you get used to it.
I just don't like the design and the way OSX handles. I find it weird, and since there's cheaper options that work in a more familiar way and are just as powerful, I don't see a reason for me to ever use a mac.

Well, 8.1 works fine, but it's not much of a step up compared to 7. And there are some processes that you absolutely have to disable to be able to game, as they will hijack your disk and run it at 100 %. The processes are superfetch which will catalogue your data making it faster to search for it, and BITS which is basically the update service.
Both of them are a huge problem for me. My OS and data disk is a 1TB 7200 RPM HDD, and if either of those is running, I will occasionally lose all control over my computer while they do their thing for 30 minutes or more, and then don't do anything.

People say that Superfetch is fine, but my experience shows otherwise.

Apple really doesn't actually care about the Mac prices because its revenue is primarily from iPhones. Macs are for professional jobs like Graphic Design, Movie Editors, and Servers. The price really fits the criteria because they know those pros will buy it. Now normal Windows machines are actually getting better at these areas, but the Mac is still supreme. Also, people will say "Why don't they build a PC?". Well Movie Studios and Businesses want something out of the box. It really is a business machine, not just a normal PC.

As someone whos best friend is a sound engineer and has been on a tour around some of the most prestigous studios in the world located in england, including the studio who did all the sound for the Batman Trilogy...

I know the price is terribly inflated. Apple doesn't care though because diehard fans of the thing keep buying the next machine(most photo studios) . The Mac itself shouldn't be getting flak, the diehard fanbase should be. When I said the price fits the criteria, I meant the price doesn't matter to big business. To the average computer user, it's overrated.

Business that have no need for it. Also, small business never go for the mac option. That would be insane. Every single receptionist I have been in were using iMacs. Funny though, they were using Bootcamp. But Photo and Movie Studios are still using Macs, but they are slowly going to the PC because Final Cut Pro X was so different from the past ones, it just pissed them off and they decided to go with Adobe Premier.

Managment would never waste money on macs for receptionists unless they were utter plebians.

The business world is all about the price to profit ratio, if a cheaper machine will do something just as good/better then they will sure as hell go for that, the businesses you see with macs everywhere are probably apple stores, apple developers or businesses that clearly dont know how to manage their budget.

All the more reason for it to be absolutely retarded, surely that money should go into actual healthcare? and why the **** would anyone have a mac in a doctors office? it provides no additional benefit and is likely incompatible with a lot of medical software

I dont know how you do it in america, but here in the uk, the healthcare system prefers not to spend money on shiny metal turds

Yes it works just like any other private business that relies on a specific type of service. what I'm trying to say is why would management of said practice waste money on a shiny bucket for ******* receptionists(who do **** all work anyway), when it can buy a windows machine and put the same money into its medical equipment, meaning better quality of care which leads to them being able to charge higher for the same service? or hire more staff/expand the business? or even better, pocket the potential savings?

Before you reply, educate yourself, come up with a ******* valid answer or give up because your just digging yourself deeper

I guess you cannot grasp "disposable income". Doctors can afford 1 Mac in like 4 appointments. And I love how you believe that a high income business is taking a massive hit from buying macs. Dude, it's a doctor's office. They make a **** ton of money.

That doesn't mean profit margins can't be increased, what business in their right mind throws away cash for a sub-par product?

And i never said they are taking a hit (your ability to read imaginary words is pretty good i must admit) I'm simply asking WHY?

lemme say that again... WHY? Who in their right mind chooses a mac just because they have money to waste? No business, not even wealthy ones just throws away cash for a label unless they are truly stupid, its the ******* loyalty to game companies all over again.